memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Which unnamed species need their own article?
:See also Forum:Humanoid species article issues I've been looking at the Category: Unnamed species page and I've noticed that some unnamed species have their own page (for example, Abaddon's species), some unnamed species have redirects to the page of an individual character (for example "Alnschloss K'Bentayr's species") and some are part of a long list (for example, Kukulkan's zoo). Why do some unnamed species have their own page and some don't? Is it just that no one's created a page for some of them yet? Or is there some set of rules on Memory Alpha about which species are notable enough to have their own page? Also, does anyone know how to edit Category pages? I've been trying to remove the "Nassuc's species" redirect (since Nassuc is a Palamarian) and add a redirect for The Traveler's species. But for some reason, I can't edit the page. NetSpiker (talk) 07:22, March 2, 2015 (UTC) :An unnamed species generally has its own page if some sort of information is revealed about the species itself. If an "X's species" page would simply duplicate that about the individual X's page, we just have the page on the individual. Awhile back there was many such duplicate pages(and there may still be some around) but most were dealt with in this manner. 31dot (talk) 10:36, March 2, 2015 (UTC) I think an unnamed species should have its own page only if at least 2 members of the species were seen. "Information about the species" can be a vague concept. NetSpiker (talk) 02:16, March 4, 2015 (UTC) Also, if only one member of a species is seen, that individual could be a hybrid. NetSpiker (talk) 12:58, March 5, 2015 (UTC) :Unless someone is specifically said to be a hybrid, we assume that they are not, as any character not specifically said to be a particular race could be a hybrid. "Information about the species" is not vague; it is any information which applies to the species and not just the seen individual. Cany you cite an example of a page that is problematic for you (in that it is about an unnamed species with less than 2 seen members)? 31dot (talk) 14:32, March 5, 2015 (UTC) There are plenty of examples: Bahrat's species, Barash's species, Bathar's species, Bosaal's species, Cos' species, Grathon Tolar's species, Homn's species, Jarlath's species, Kipp's species, Krole's species, Maturin's species, Nara's species, Saowin's species, Satler's species, Tau's species, Tiron's species, Trajok's species, Vekor's species, Worene's species and Zjod's species. The only information these pages contain is a description of the species' appearance (which is reduntant because we have a photo) and sometimes there's also a sentence saying something like "One member of the species was seen on a certain planet/outpost". I wouldn't say that's information worthy of its own page. Trajis Lo-Tarik's species has the additional problem of being Seven of Nine's hallucination. NetSpiker (talk) 09:45, March 6, 2015 (UTC) :I didn't go through every one but it does seem that at least a few of them were overlooked from when, as I said, we dealt with the issue in general before. Some of those probably do need to be redirected. 31dot (talk) 09:49, March 6, 2015 (UTC) I found a discussion about this exact topic from 2007, where you suggested submitting each page for merging/deletion. I guess I'll try that and see what happens. NetSpiker (talk) 14:13, March 11, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm going to suggest an alternate method shortly. Don't put up 50 articles for deletion like that please. -- sulfur (talk) 14:41, March 11, 2015 (UTC) ::Further to that, I put together a suggestion for a method for handling such pages. The more I look at these articles, the more I believe that they should not exist if we can't name them by location, "description", or similar. -- sulfur (talk) 14:51, March 11, 2015 (UTC) :::Seeing several of those examples mentioned above have now been merged after individual discussions on their talkpages, do we have to continue this individual approach or can we agree here they should all get merged, or if not present arguments here? Kennelly (talk) 13:45, August 2, 2016 (UTC) :::: I've merged all but two. One being a species with more than a single member, thus excluded from the merge caveat of "only member of his species", and the other, I think, is probably worth discussing because the only member of that species does talk of the species itself (vs. us simply creating an article based on observations of the single member.) --Alan (talk) 13:13, March 20, 2018 (UTC) :::::Which would those be? --LauraCC (talk) 15:06, March 21, 2018 (UTC) :::: The one's still linked in the list. --Alan (talk) 15:08, March 21, 2018 (UTC)